Name: Margaret A O'Brien
Arrested for: Larceny
Arrested at: North Shields Police Station
Arrested on: 6 August 1904
Tyne and Wear Archives ref: DX1388-1-35-Margaret O Brien
The Shields Daily Gazette for 6 August 1904 reports:
?Margaret Ann O?Brien (14), 1 Queen?s Terrace, North Shields, was charged with attempting to obtain the sum of £1 from Messrs Irvin & Sons, with intent to cheat and defraud them, on the 5th August. Remanded for eight days?.
The Shields Daily Gazette for 13 August 1904 reports:
?NORTH SHIELDS GIRL SENT TO GAOL
At North Shields to-day, Margaret A. O?Brien (14), 1 Queen?s Terrace, North Shields, was charged on remand with unlawfully attempting to obtain from John Thos. Hewitt the sum of £1, the money of Messrs Irvin and Sons, fishing boat owners, with intent to cheat and defraud. She was further charged with obtaining £1 on another date from the same firm.
In the first case Mr Hewitt stated that the girl came to the office of his employer on the 5th inst., and said she had been sent by Mrs Davies, the wife of an engineer serving on one of their boats, the Langley castle, and asked for a sovereign. As she had twice previously been at the office for money, supposed to be for Mrs Davies, but which she had never received, witness detained her and sent for the police.
Elizabeth Ellen Davies, wife of George Davies, stated her husband was employed by Messrs Irvin and Sons. She had never sent the accused to receive any money at the office. She had only seen her once before and only knew her by sight.
Detective-Sergt. Scougal spoke to being called to Messrs Irvin and Sons? office on the Fish Quay and finding the accused detained there. He charged her with attempting to obtain £1 by means of false pretences and she admitted the offence. At first she told him that her sister sent her, but subsequently she said she had gone on her own initiative.
On the second charge it was stated in evidence that the accused went to the office on the 29th ult. and asked for£1 for Mrs Davies. This was given to her and she signed the receipt as Lily Muir.
Detective Scougal said when charged with the second offence she stated that a man of the name of Cook had sent her and had given her a share of the money. Her story, however, could not be verified. The accused, who was crying bitterly, admitted the theft in both cases.
The Chairman (Mr F.R.N. Haswell) said the magistrates had been very much puzzled to know what to do with the accused, as she did not seem to have an idea of what theft was. He added that they were going to inflict a punishment upon her which it was hoped would have the effect of reclaiming her from the career in which she had started. He committed her to prison for seven days on each charge. There were two other cases of the same character against her, but one was withdrawn and other was not gone into".
These images are a selection from an album of photographs of prisoners brought before the North Shields Police Court between 1902 and 1916 in the collection of Tyne & Wear Archives (TWA ref DX1388/1).
This set contains mugshots of boys and girls under the age of 21. This reflects the fact that until 1970 that was the legal age of majority in the UK.
(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk.

Name: Robert Lightly alias Golightly
Arrested for: Larceny
Arrested at: North Shields Police Station
Arrested on: 27 May 1904
Tyne and Wear Archives ref: DX1388-1-29-Robert Lightly AKA Golightly
For an image of Lightly's accomplice, Anthony Russell see www.flickr.com/photos/twm_news/19172779382/in/dateposted/.
The Shields Daily Gazette for 28 May 1904 reports:
?TWO MINERS HAVE A NIGHT OUT. FRACAS ON A NO. SHIELDS FARM
At North Shields Anthony Russell (27) and Robert Lightly (24), pitmen, Percy Main, were charged with being concerned together in stealing a duck, value 10s, the property of Mr Elwin on the 22nd inst.
Joseph Elwin said that at 4.25 am he was awakened by his father, who told him that he had heard three shots fired. He got up and looked out of the window, and saw two men, each carrying a gun, on the field of the farm. He went out with another lad, and on getting up to men he saw that one was carrying a bundle, from which he saw a hare?s head protruding. He asked him why he had shot the hare on his father?s land. They made no reply and walked away. He then gave information to the police. On getting back to the farm he missed a duck.
An officer spoke to arresting the defendants and charged them with stealing a duck. Lightly replied that Russell shot the duck and took it away. Russell replied that he burnt it. Mr Duncan, for the defence, said that there was no doubt they shot the duck, but it was not with a felonious intent. It appeared that on the Saturday night they had taken too much drink, and on the Sunday morning they got up at four o?clock and took their guns into the fields. Russell had seen a duck and the temptation had been too strong, and he had shot it. The Bench committed both defendants to prison for 14 days.
The prisoners were afterwards charged with threatening Joseph Elwin. The prosecutor said that when he accused the two men of trespassing on the farm they both threatened to shoot him if he did not get out of their way. Lightly said that he would drill rabbit holes into him. Mr Duncan, for the defendants, denied the charges, and stated that Elwin challenged the men to fight. The defendants both denied the charge on oath.
They were both bound over in the sum of £10 in their own recognisances and sureties of £10 each, or in default committed for 14 days; they were also ordered to pay the costs for both sides or in default go to prison for seven days.
The defendant Lightly was charged with assaulting Elwin by striking him in the chest with his fist and with the muzzle end of the gun. The defendants were next charged with trespassing in search of game at Chirton Hill Farm on the same date. Mr Duncan submitted that the defendants had already been sufficiently punished for their offence, and the summons for trespass ought to be withdrawn, especially as it was taken out against the wish of Mr Elwin.
The Chief Constable contradicted the latter statement. Mr Duncan said that Mr Elwin had stated in Court that he did not wish the case to proceed and therefore the summons could not stand. The Chief Constable sad that he himself was the informant in the case and he intended to go on with it. Mr Duncan took the ruling of the Court on the point, and Mr Kidd decided that the Chief Constable was acting within his rights. After hearing the evidence, the magistrates fined defendants 10s and costs or in default 14 days imprisonment to run concurrently with the other commitments?.
These images are a selection from an album of photographs of prisoners brought before the North Shields Police Court between 1902 and 1916 in the collection of Tyne & Wear Archives (TWA ref DX1388/1).
(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk.